Since names would most likely be transliterated and would closely follow
the original, they give a good test for the language of the original documents.

The Jews in 600 BC at the time that Lehi took his family and left Jerusalem
where heavily influenced by the Egyptians and the Book of Mormon even mentions
the use of the "language of the Egyptians." Therefor the names
in the Book of Mormon should show both Hebrew and Egyptian influences.

"It is hard to explain bull's-eyes like Korihor, Pahoran, and Paankhi
as pure accidents. Paankhi was a popular Egyptian name in the seventh century
B.C., but it was not known until the end of the last century; and what
American would dream of cooking up such combinations as "aa"
or "kh"? Interestingly enough, there are two separate Korihors
. . . in the Old World, the one a genuine Egyptian name (Kerihor, Hurhor,
etc., was a high priest of Ammon and chief judge who seized the throne
in 1085 B.C.), and the other of Asiatic origin going back to the dawn of
history.[1] This is interesting because
there are also two forms of the name in the Book of Mormon, the one (Corihor)
being an impor- tant Jardite name, and the other (Korihor) the name of
a Nephite chief judge.

Book of Mormon theophoric names such as Gadianhi, Korihor, Amnihor,
etc., follow the proper rules of construction with the conventional employment
of mimation [ending with ~m] and nunation [ending in ~n]. The Egyptian
names even fall into the Old World statistical pattern with an absolute
predominance of the name Ammon, with Manti second in order, and a heavy
emphasis on names beginning with "Pa" and high fre- quency of
the elements "mor" and "hor".[2]

In 1948 it was pointed out that there was a tendency for the Egyptian
and Hebrew names in the Book of Mormon to turn up in the Elephantine region
of Upper Egypt. But then it was noticed that Prof. Albright observed that
at the time Lehi left Jerusalem the remaining people " hid in the
wilds during the siege . . ." and when all was lost fled to Egypt.
And where did they settle? At Elephantine, far up the Nile.[3]

The most frequent "theophoric" element in the Book of Mormon
and Egyptian names is Ammon.

Boof of Mormon names follow the same rules of formation as the Egyp-
tian names.

Mimation (ending with ~m) predominated with Jaredite names (2000 to
600 BC), and nunation (ending with ~n) predominates= in Nephite and Lamanite
names. This is strictly in keeping with the development of languages in
the Old World.

A large proportion of Book of Mormon names end in ~iah and ~ihah. The
same is true of Palestinian names of Lehi's time but of no other.

The names that are not Egyptian or Hebrew are Arabic, Hittite, or Greek.
This corresponds with the purported origin of the book.

Lehi is a real personal name, unknown at the time of Joseph Smith.

Baal names (names compounded with the theophoric Baal element) which
thrive in the Old Testament are not found at all in the Book of Mormon.
We now know that for some reason the Jews of the beginning of the sixth
century BC would have nothing to do with Baal names. ". . . out of
some four hundred personal names among the Elephantine papyri, not one
is compounded of Baal . . ."[4]

Recently there have discovered lists of names that Nebuchadnezzar brought
back to Babylon from his expeditions in Syria and Palestine. Among them
are a respectable portion of Egyptian names. According to D. H. Thomas,
this list shows that it was popular at the time to name children after
Egyptian hero kings of the past.[5] The
name Aha, which a Nephite general bestowed on his son, means "warrior"
and was borne by the legendary first hero king of Egypt. Himni, Korihor,
Paanchi, Pakumeni, Sam, Zeezrom, Ham, Manti, Nephi and Zenoch are all Egyptian
hero names.[6]

Additional evidences could be cited such as the large number of ~iah
names in the age of Jeremiah, pendant names characteristic of the area,
and even the comparison of the names with the activities of the individuals
and verifying that they match the meaning of the names.

Admittedly the study of names is open to much speculation in understanding
sounds of words and making the associations. This is not a conclusive proof
but it adds to the others that I have mentioned and will mention. However,
each of these points could be expanded upon if anyone is interested.